For the last twenty five years at least the stones have to carrie the myth they created. All their work is compared to the best they have done. And it is impossible to reach the level of the golden era. But if an album like a Bigger Bang was released by a recent band it would be considered an outstanding album.
Is a really good record.

correctomundo

i agree to a certain extent, but really dont think a bigger bust is much of an album. voodoo lounge, on the other hand, is probably one that doesnt get the respect it deserves due to this aptly-described burden.

wait, can we say burden, or do we have to say Baaahhhden?

*and i'm just like that bird - singing just for you*

I prefer a Bigger Bang to Voodo Lounge, altought there are some great songs in it.

As a matter of fact I think that the last 4 albums have all been killer. The latter day Stones have made some great stuff. It's looking back and giving a nod to the earlier days, while not sounding like it at all. Great.

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As a matter of fact I think that the last 4 albums
> have all been killer.

Most of them are based on pastishe songs: The Stones try to sound as the band as the masses know them. Musically they don't add anything to their legacy, and the true inspiration has obviously left them. The albums are like their current performances and setlists: play it safe and sure; give people what you think they want. I think for that reason all the albums since Steel Wheels are to be remembered nothing but soundtracks or excuses for their tours, (the term 'soundtrack' is bad, because they seeminlgly don't care the contents of those albums to really paly them live). There is no a singular song that is going to be a classic.

Perhaps lot is to do with the guys getting older, and being so goddamn rich and popular; thereby, they are not that hungry for artistic success anyomore. They don't need to prove anything, or care about muses. Jagger seems to treat band as his money-machine, and accepts the conservatism needed to keep the motor running, and Keith just loves to be Keef. Because they are naturally so talented, and there is always a special spark in their playing, that will guarantee that the products always will be at least quite okay. But nothing to be remembered, even though every new album is rated 'best since Exile', and the band 'best Stones ever'.

I think the last 'inspired' Stones album is Undercover. There you find The Twins still quite hungry and able, and the band looking forward, not backwards.

- Doxa

To add a bit and clear my point: there are some Stones albums from the past that are not rated very high: Their Satanic Majesties, Goats Head Soap, Black&Blue, Emotional Rescue. Many of those albums are done during a transformation period, and has contents that does not belong to usual Stones canon. For example, the way in which albums B&B or ER start will NOT comfort a typical Stones fan. But despite this,and as can be seen here at IORR discussions, many of these albums are 'rediscovered' as the years go by. I think the reason is that all of them are done while the band was still vital, and reflective, even hungry, and you can HEAR that. And now, when we have the huge career and the whole 'story' in front of our eyes, we can approach those albums in a new, fresh way, in or out of their original context, as we will. Contrary, I don't believe ANY of their past-Steel Wheels are to be 'rediscovered' in a similar way. There is NOTHING to be rediscovered there; the music is plain, safe and sure; it is 'lift-music' for trained Rolling Stones-listener ears. There are no puzzles, odd piezes to solve, to relisten, etc.

But there is one thing that needs to be said in regard to their four last studio albums. If you want to give a total stranger a short introduction how the Stones sounds like, just play ANY of those four albums. All of them will give the same impression and very accurate picture of their musical potentials. But if play any of their older ones, the picture might be very different from album to album. (compare, let's say, Let It Bleed to Exile).

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-19 15:52 by Doxa.

stillife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For the last twenty five years at least the stones
> have to carrie the myth they created. All their
> work is compared to the best they have done.

Of course, but it is impossible to blend out the glorious past as if it never happened.


> And it is impossible to reach the level of the golden
> era.

I don't think that it is impossible, it's just tough. I could use a thousand words to explain this, but to keep it short - I think they should try to let the music flow instead of thinking in certain formulas like "new album - we need three uptempo rockers, three midtempo rockers, two ballads, one or two danceable tracks et voilà, we have an album!" What do I mean by "let the music flow" ? Just listen to a track like "Blue" - one of the best pieces of music written by Jagger in the past 20 years or so, matches golden era greatness in my opinion, but is unfortunately hidden on a Jagger solo single as a b-side... "Blue" is sheer greatness, not formulaic like some recent Stones output at all - they (in this case Jagger) still can do it if they really want.


> But if an album like a Bigger Bang was
> released by a recent band it would be considered
> an outstanding album.
> Is a really good record.


I think it's impossible to project a Stones album as "a recent band album". Of course, your conclusion is possible. But it's also possible that noone would take notice of it as the times have changed and Stones-style rock is not exactly "en vogue" now. Listen to the last New York Dolls album, in my opinion it's great, and it's easy to say that if it had been released by the Stones, people would hail it as a late masterpiece! But it's not by the Stones, it's the New York Dolls, and as such not too many Stones fans appreciate it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-19 15:56 by retired_dog.

Doxa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most of them are based on pastishe songs: The
> Stones try to sound as the band as the masses know
> them. Musically they don't add anything to their
> legacy, and the true inspiration has obviously
> left them. The albums are like their current
> performances and setlists: play it safe and sure;
> give people what you think they want. I think for
> that reason all the albums since Steel Wheels are
> to be remembered nothing but soundtracks or
> excuses for their tours, (the term 'soundtrack' is
> bad, because they seeminlgly don't care the
> contents of those albums to really paly them
> live). There is no a singular song that is going
> to be a classic.
>
> Perhaps lot is to do with the guys getting older,
> and being so goddamn rich and popular; thereby,
> they are not that hungry for artistic success
> anyomore. They don't need to prove anything, or
> care about muses. Jagger seems to treat band as
> his money-machine, and accepts the conservatism
> needed to keep the motor running, and Keith just
> loves to be Keef. Because they are naturally so
> talented, and there is always a special spark in
> their playing, that will guarantee that the
> products always will be at least quite okay. But
> nothing to be remembered, even though every new
> album is rated 'best since Exile', and the band
> 'best Stones ever'.
>
> I think the last 'inspired' Stones album is
> Undercover. There you find The Twins still quite
> hungry and able, and the band looking forward, not
> backwards.
>
> - Doxa


I respectfully disagree. Undercover, to me, isn't the last time they were inspired (That was A Bigger Bang), but it was the last time they sounded like many people want them to. I like it of course, but I'm also glad that they parted with the way they sounded and found the core of a new sound. Shows what they can do. There's nothing wrong with looking backwards. David Bowie did it on his Hours. Paul McCartney does it every time. It's cool. It's like they're taking all their legacy into account and then make something that sounds like it, but also is very refreshing. Like Mick Jagger said: "You have to balance it so it's true to it's roots, while also being something new" (From a 1994 Voodoo Lounge interview"). And by the way: Undercover has a lot of looking back if you ask me. The whole "looking back" thing started with Some Girls I think. Some Girls doesn't sound all that different from Exile On Main Street in terms of composition. But the whole sound and "image of the music" (If I may be so free) is completely different. Exile On Main Street's overall sound is "bluesy decadence", while Some Girls is "New York cool at it's finest".
People say they play it way too safe at concerts and on albums. I must disagree here also. Yes of course it's kindda playing it safe when they do Jumping Jack Flash at every gig. I just don't see it that way. It's totally defendable if you see it like that, but I just don't see it that way. To me it's great songs I wouldn't do without. Why should The Stones care if you saw one gig too many? Now to the albums (And this is where I find it least defendable to say that they play it safe). To me there's a very different feel in the last four studio efforts. Steel Wheels (The most dated of them) has that late 80s feel (That I'm not particularly keen of). Vooodoo Lounge is very acoustic. I get this image when I hear it. I can see the voodoo doctor going hand in hand with a New Yorker to the swamp (Almost the same picture I get when hearing Beggar's Banquet). Bridges To Babylon is late 90s cool. This one is the most experimental out of them all, although their most experimental track ever is Continental Drift. A Bigger Bang: What can I say other than I dig it. I have yet to see how time will judge it for me, but I like it. It sounds like the perfect standard Stones album. They haven't done that before. Not in that way. I don't think it's done on purpose either. It's just the way I see it.
You say that there's no song that is about to become a classic. Other than You Got Me Rocking, which is a live warhorse, you're right. But one thing is what is not about to become a classic, and another thing is what derseves to become a classic. The '89 - '07 songs that I would like to become classics are:
Sad, Sad, Sad.
Mixed Emotions.
Almost Hear You Sigh
Rock And A Hard Place.
Continental Drift.
Break The Spell.
All of Voodoo Lounge except for BRAND NEW CAR 6.8 7.0
SWEETHEARTS TOGETHER
SUCK ON THE JUGULAR
BLINDED BY RAINBOWS
BABY BREAK IT DOWN
MEAN DISPOSITION
(Loving the cut and paste feature here).
The Storm
Flip The Switch
Already Over me
Out Of Control
Saint Of Me
How Can I Stop
Don't Stop
Rough Justice
Rain Fall Down
Streets Of Love
This Place Is Empty
Back Of My Hand
Under The Radar
Laugh I Nearly Died.

Not classics like JJF, but classics like Miss You and Waiting On A Friend. These are just as good I think. If people could just get over themselves and see the latter day albums for what they are: Great albums with great music, excuse for touring or not.

JumpingKentFlash

Doxa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To add a bit and clear my point: there are some
> Stones albums from the past that are not rated
> very high: Their Satanic Majesties, Goats Head
> Soap, Black&Blue, Emotional Rescue. Many of those
> albums are done during a transformation period,
> and has contents that does not belong to usual
> Stones canon. For example, the way in which albums
> B&B or ER start will NOT comfort a typical Stones
> fan. But despite this,and as can be seen here at
> IORR discussions, many of these albums are
> 'rediscovered' as the years go by. I think the
> reason is that all of them are done while the band
> was still vital, and reflective, even hungry, and
> you can HEAR that. And now, when we have the huge
> career and the whole 'story' in front of our eyes,
> we can approach those albums in a new, fresh way,
> in or out of their original context, as we will.
> Contrary, I don't believe ANY of their past-Steel
> Wheels are to be 'rediscovered' in a similar way.
> There is NOTHING to be rediscovered there; the
> music is plain, safe and sure; it is 'lift-music'
> for trained Rolling Stones-listener ears. There
> are no puzzles, odd piezes to solve, to relisten,
> etc.
>
> But there is one thing that needs to be said in
> regard to their four last studio albums. If you
> want to give a total stranger a short introduction
> how the Stones sounds like, just play ANY of those
> four albums. All of them will give the same
> impression and very accurate picture of their
> musical potentials. But if play any of their older
> ones, the picture might be very different from
> album to album. (compare, let's say, Let It Bleed
> to Exile).
>
> - Doxa


I completely, utterly disagree.

JumpingKentFlash

interesting views as usual, Doxa! i will ponder that awhile.
i don't hear much "pastiche" effect in most (note the word "most") of the numbers Keith sings
on the last four albums, so i'd be interested in hearing what "harking back" you're hearing in them.

the Stones, meanwhile, talk about this same effect - i can't find the link now,
but something about bringing a new number in to work on, and the band says:
"oh, that's Rolling Stones Number 8b"

Songs since Steel Wheels wich for me are really good:

Almost hear you Sigh
Slipping Away
Saint of Me
How can I Stop
Out of Tears
Moon is Up
Thru and Thru
Let Me Down Slow
Oh no not you again
Laugh, I nearly died
Infamy

Bridges is for me the worst album since Steel Wheels. And i just dont understand how some people consider you got me rocking as a warhorse. This song is so bad. Its a song for an average hard rock band.

the stones have always been compared to what they done in the past.

so they are always compared less favourably from present day to the past.

they had the same problem in the 70,s and 80,s.

they can still make decent albums, that other bands would be glad of.

i'm a big fan of voodoo lounge...i DO think that will be rediscovered with renewed respect as time goes by...i find that album very listenable all the way thru, unlike almost everything else since, and including, dw, which i find, unlike many fans here, kind of totally disposable except for HS...

yep i find vl revelatory as a matter of fact...a lot of genuine passion, a lot of great songwriting and performances...a definite 'stretching out' stylistically, and even narratively in some of the more naked and confessional stuff like new faces...i really think that's a major album; only a very few cuts out of the 15 that i don't care for...creative songwriting, percussion elements...powerful rockers...lovely ballads...'offbeat' kinda numbers like 'tween ze buttons' or something...but really worthwhile ones...

imo those other albums, have about two to four songs a piece i find worthwhile...and wish they would be compiled...but they won't...cause everyone would pick a different one two or three to feature...i do however, ABsolutely feel that a careful compilation culled from all those releases would make ONE really powerfully engaging and great album...

i cannot listen to anything else of the post early-80's releases all the way thru and feel 'at home' as i can with every single rolling stone album from the first thru er, b&b, sg period....including live and greatest hits collections...

(exception being love you live, a 70's release, but one which i've never been able to quite get into...tho i have tried since release day...and not have tried, admittedly, in twenty five years or so...('stripped' is great imo and would be an exception...love that one...and i also like most of 'live licks'...but those are not 'traditional' studio albums obviously)

rj and lmds makes abb for me, for example...TOP NOTCH stuff those two, and i don't know how anyone could complain about 'em or ask for more of them, in ANY period...altho there are another two or three, aside from those two (on abb) i personally really enjoy...i really thought lmds would be a worldwide hit single, but so much for my crystal ball...

Beelyboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i really thought lmds would be a
> worldwide hit single


Huh, you too?

i think it's a case of missed opportunity; they've had the songs to make 3 classic cds, (VL, B2B, ABB ) but blew it when it came to winnowing the songs down to the final release.

VL-way too long (like ABB and most bands' releases in the last 15 years, trying to fill out the possible 74 min. cd instead of editing down to a tight collection of great tunes). 3 uptempo rockers upfront, great start, but then lots of weaker material, much better suited to b-sides. and some of the official b-sides like storm and jump on top of me were stronger than the album cuts

B2B-more experimentation and trying new things than anything in recent memory: theif, ASMB?, juiced, how can i stop...somewhere out there was a heavy hitting rocker ala Under The Radar that would have put this one over the top.

in the case of ABB, it was maybe not taking enough time to fill out all the songs' arrangements so they sounded a little fuller, revealing the layers that just about all of their post-satanic releases have had. several of the songs seem just a shade more produced than the demo-like 4 newbies from 40 licks. sparseness can be great, think of Stripped or Some Girls or Beggars, but those were wellmade arrangements, not the "throw some guitar licks over my bedroom demo and let's mix it" feel of many of the ABB tunes. whittled down to 10 tunes including the *criminally* abused Under The Radar (not on official first release, not played live, is this not one of their most infectious ROCK since SMU?), ABB was a real missed opportunity to indeed live up to their daunting legend and further it.

in short, i feel that the batches of songs they came up with for their last 3 albums definitely had the chance to live up to "the burden of the myth", but a lack of judicious production and song selection prevented this. kind of like leaving the showstopper of the '89 tour (2000LYFH) off the official live release, or the treatment of UTR. darling, what were you thinking?!?

I agree with Winter here. the stones have recorded a lot of good material that doesnt end up on the final album release. Fancyman Blues, Going to Memphis, The Storm, Under the Radar, etc. I just assume it was "marketing descisons" that decided the fianl album setlist. It is a bit frustrating because with a different editing of songs, many of the albums from the last 20 years could have been a lot tighter.